France's 'Millionaire Tax'

[Xirtam]

Do tell me how the rich are being demonized.

while the rich are busy doing drugs rolling around in expensive cars and buying up million dollar mansions?

That is not demonizing the rich in anyway.
I don't care if rich people do drugs and own expensive cars and mansions as long as they pay their fair share.
If they allow poor people to suffer than it's completely justified to demonize them.

[Seriong]

Taxation is effectively stealing, but when you tax more of a person's income than they actually get, that escalates it. It's similar to saying "I stole a loaf of bread" and "I stole a diamond necklace"

If you believe that taxation is theft, then why would you advocate any taxation at all?

Have you ever heard the phrase "Necessary Evil" that's what he's saying. He also believes that something like 20% is reasonable, and useful, but that 66% is too much. In the same way that stealing a loaf of bread is not as bad as stealing a diamond necklace.

[The Republic of Pantalleria]

Well there goes France's standing as the 5th largest economy in the World.

[Vitaphone Racing]

That is not demonizing the rich in anyway.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure accusing an entire demographic of doing drugs and wasting their money is demonizing them.

I don't care if rich people do drugs and own expensive cars and mansions as long as they pay their fair share

Then surely you'd be relieved that they were buying expensive cars and mansions because they're actually putting their earnings back into the economy.

If they allow poor people to suffer than it's completely justified to demonize them.

No it's not.

[Kaledy]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/30/business/international/french-millionaire-tax-cleared.html?hpw&rref=business

France’s Constitutional Council gave the go-ahead on Sunday to the government’s so-called millionaire tax, to be levied on companies that pay salaries of more than 1 million euros a year.

...

It was originally intended as a 75 percent tax to be paid by high earners on the portion of annual income exceeding €1 million, or roughly $1.37 million, but the council rejected it last year, saying it was unfair. France’s top administrative court later said that 66 percent was the legal maximum for individuals.

The Socialist government has since reworked the tax to levy it on companies instead, raising the ire of entrepreneurs.

Under its new design, which the council found constitutional, the tax will be a 50 percent rate on the portion of wages above €1 million in 2013 and 2014.

Including social contributions, the rate will effectively remain about 75 percent, though the tax will be capped at 5 percent of a company’s turnover.

My take on the matter?

This consistent attack on the wealthy by (many) socialist and other left wing governments seems to only confirm my longstanding belief that the left is only concerned with enlarging the size of government and subverting the sovereignty of the individual. It unfairly places the tax burned on wealthy individuals and companies.

So..........your thought's on France's 'Millionaire Tax'?

So your longstanding belief has finally been confirmed by something that happened somewhere in the world and no sane human being would see as confirmation of all the b.s. you think it does.

Congratulations.

[AiliailiA]

Which would be completely unnecisary had the French government maintained a better budget.

Point to me a Western nation which didn't slide into steep deficits when the GFC hit, be they governed by Left or Right. Fact of the matter is this: a budget deficit below 5% of GDP (France's is 4.6% today) is doing better than Bush's last budget did (9.2% of GDP) or better than the British budget is doing (6% of GDP)....of course, those two nations still maintain the power to issue their own currencies, and can therefore borrow more cheaply. They also didn't sign the idiotic "no budget deficits above 3% of GDP, ever" suicide compact that is the Eurozone.

But having a go at the present French government for the deficits they largely inherited, and claiming that it's the inevitable result of left-wing governance (when the previous President and Parliament were UMP, which is to say center-right, and ran up even larger deficits), is simply dishonest.

I suspect that Vazdania and people like him have already forgotten the Sarkozy wasn't Socialist Party. The election of a president brazen enough to call himself that dirty word has confirmed their prejudice against France as being near communist and anything bad that ever happens in France will be their fault.

France has run a budget deficit every single year since 1974. The nearest it's been to balanced was a deficit of 0.3% GDP near the end of Giscard d'Estaing's presidency, in 1980.

[Euronion]

Oh I care deeply about the poor, I also care about the rich.

If you really cared about the poor then why would you allow them to suffer in the way they do living paycheck to paycheck with extreme difficulty accommodating and feeding themselves while the rich are busy doing drugs rolling around in expensive cars and buying up million dollar mansions?
More importantly, if you really care about everyone, why are you not concerned about the kind of revolution having a whole class of landless people who have to work for mere survival and the ways in which it could effect rich people as well as civil liberties?

Personally I find the demonization of the rich to be quite alarming

Do tell me how the rich are being demonized.

as well as the principle that somehow it is okay to take well over half of what a successful person makes for themselves to be justifiable.

How is it not justifiable?
Do you seriously believe that successful people get to where they are purely by their own efforts?

Whether you like it or not, the rich have their money, I don't see why we need to obsess about taking it all from them.

I never advocated taking it all, and we need to take high amounts of money from them to fix problems like disease, crime, illiteracy, and poverty.

If you're looking for total equality you're not going to get it,

I'm not advocating that.

the only way to fix poverty is to increase social mobility.

And you don't particularly seem to be supporting that.

Poverty will never be eradicated and no amount of taxation is going to change that fact.
Every government that has tried has failed and I don't see why France is any exception.

Places like Norway have much less poverty than places like the US.

1. I care about the poor, their suffering hurts me. I am not prepared to dawn green tights and going around taking from the people I deem "unfit" to have money and giving it to people I deem more "fit" to have money.

2. "while the rich are busy doing drugs rolling around in expensive cars and buying up million dollar mansions?" A quote from you, not all people are doing drugs or rolling around in expensive cars with million dollar mansions. Yet you seem to think that it is okay to generalize them as such and so many left-wing people think it's okay to take their money because they deem them to be unfit tax evaders who can't possibly deserve to keep the wealth they earned. No, YOU and YOU ALONE are the only one who should EVER decide where other people's money go because you should be the ultimate judge of who is and who isn't fit to have wealth.

3. Yeah, I do. Successful people remain successful for a reason. If they weren't doing it on their own then how would they remain successful? If the rich weren't doing SOMETHING to maintain their wealth then they'd be as poor as the people you claim to be wanting to help. Yet these rich people remain rich, is it so foreign to you that someone who is rich may have actually, I don't know, gotten their by their own accord?

4. "I don't think we should take it all, I think we should just take 75% of it" that is analogous to saying "I never advocated killing ALL the rich people, just 75% of them"

5. Perhaps you are not, but many left-wingers are.

6. How so? contrary to popular belief, throwing money at poor people doesn't usually help them work their way out of being poor. You and I seem to contradict on a fundamental level. I think an individual and a poor person is capable of pulling themselves out of poverty, my family certainly did. My grandfather moved to America with only the clothes on his back, not a penny to his name, started working in the fields, worked two jobs, paid his own way through night college, my grandmother worked in a cannery, and he became successful. He rose from dirt poor to middle class. I think that the poor are capable of doing that. To go along with an old saying, instead of constantly delivering them fish so they can eat for that night, why don't we teach them how to fish so they can eat for a lifetime?

7. "much less poverty" is not the eradication of poverty. May I also remind you that while the United States has a continuous influx of illegal and uneducated immigrants, Norway is pretty safe buffered by continental Europe, Sweden, Finland, and the North Sea; Norway is also about the size of California and its population is no where near that of the United States.

[The Republic of Pantalleria]

Point to me a Western nation which didn't slide into steep deficits when the GFC hit, be they governed by Left or Right. Fact of the matter is this: a budget deficit below 5% of GDP (France's is 4.6% today) is doing better than Bush's last budget did (9.2% of GDP) or better than the British budget is doing (6% of GDP)....of course, those two nations still maintain the power to issue their own currencies, and can therefore borrow more cheaply. They also didn't sign the idiotic "no budget deficits above 3% of GDP, ever" suicide compact that is the Eurozone.

But having a go at the present French government for the deficits they largely inherited, and claiming that it's the inevitable result of left-wing governance (when the previous President and Parliament were UMP, which is to say center-right, and ran up even larger deficits), is simply dishonest.

I suspect that Vazdania and people like him have already forgotten the Sarkozy wasn't Socialist Party. The election of a president brazen enough to call himself that dirty word has confirmed their prejudice against France as being near communist and anything bad that ever happens in France will be their fault.

France has run a budget deficit every single year since 1974. The nearest it's been to balanced was a deficit of 0.3% GDP near the end of Giscard d'Estaing's presidency, in 1980.

Well, they could try lowering their floating interest rates to ensure that the franc depreciates so tha- what? They use the Euro now? Lololololol!!!
From: The United Kingdom (P.S. I live in NZ)

[Xirtam]

That is not demonizing the rich in anyway.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure accusing an entire demographic of doing drugs and wasting their money is demonizing them.

I'd be demonizing myself if that were the case and many other people.

I don't care if rich people do drugs and own expensive cars and mansions as long as they pay their fair share

Then surely you'd be relieved that they were buying expensive cars and mansions because they're actually putting their earnings back into the economy.

They aren't doing enough to put money back into the economy. Trickle down is bullshit.

If they allow poor people to suffer than it's completely justified to demonize them.

No it's not.

How so?
Should we also stop demonizing thieves, rapists and murderers?

[Seriong]

How so?
Should we also stop demonizing thieves, rapists and murderers?

Oh, I love this. Repeatedly you claim to not be demonizing them, and then try to justify demonizing them.

[Solaray]

I would suggest French Millionaires move to Switzerland. Or Canada, we could use some more millionaires.

[AiliailiA]

Where does government get that money?

Is it only "stealing" if they do it a bit? Taking 66% of someone's money is stealing, but taking 20% of it isn't?

Taxation is effectively stealing, but when you tax more of a person's income than they actually get, that escalates it.

You said: "you should throw money into programs that lift people out of poverty and make them productive tax-paying citizens"

And I asked you where you'd get that money from.

You'd steal it. But because it's being spent the way you want, stealing isn't so bad.

One act of theft certainly may be worse than another. If taxation is theft (for the sake of argument) then all taxation is theft. There isn't some low level of taxation below which it becomes something else.

How about this: "taxation is theft, and theft is bad. But if tax money makes possible something sufficiently good, that outweighs the harm done. Likewise if tax money is used to forestall something worse than the theft committed, like more serious crimes."

Or you could simply weigh up the good and harm, and make your argument for a low level of (individual or collective) tax without tripping over your own hyperbole.

It's similar to saying "I stole a loaf of bread" and "I stole a diamond necklace"

No, it's not similar to that at all. Analogies may serve to illustrate an argument when the argument has been made, but in absense of the logical or ethical argument itself, an analogy is just obsurantist rubbish.

[New Chalcedon]

Where does government get that money?

Is it only "stealing" if they do it a bit? Taking 66% of someone's money is stealing, but taking 20% of it isn't?

Taxation is effectively stealing

And thank you for establishing that you're not to be taken seriously. Taxation is not theft. C/o Mike Huben:

Taxation is part of a social contract. Essentially, tax is payment in exchange for services from government. This kind of argument is suitable for defending almost any tax as part of a contract. Many libertarians accept social contract (for example, essentially all minarchists must to insist on a monopoly of government.) Of course they differ as to what should be IN the contract.

[Xirtam]

If you really cared about the poor then why would you allow them to suffer in the way they do living paycheck to paycheck with extreme difficulty accommodating and feeding themselves while the rich are busy doing drugs rolling around in expensive cars and buying up million dollar mansions?
More importantly, if you really care about everyone, why are you not concerned about the kind of revolution having a whole class of landless people who have to work for mere survival and the ways in which it could effect rich people as well as civil liberties?


Do tell me how the rich are being demonized.

How is it not justifiable?
Do you seriously believe that successful people get to where they are purely by their own efforts?

I never advocated taking it all, and we need to take high amounts of money from them to fix problems like disease, crime, illiteracy, and poverty.

I'm not advocating that.

And you don't particularly seem to be supporting that.

Places like Norway have much less poverty than places like the US.

1. I care about the poor, their suffering hurts me. I am not prepared to dawn green tights and going around taking from the people I deem "unfit" to have money and giving it to people I deem more "fit" to have money.

2. "while the rich are busy doing drugs rolling around in expensive cars and buying up million dollar mansions?" A quote from you, not all people are doing drugs or rolling around in expensive cars with million dollar mansions. Yet you seem to think that it is okay to generalize them as such and so many left-wing people think it's okay to take their money because they deem them to be unfit tax evaders who can't possibly deserve to keep the wealth they earned. No, YOU and YOU ALONE are the only one who should EVER decide where other people's money go because you should be the ultimate judge of who is and who isn't fit to have wealth.

3. Yeah, I do. Successful people remain successful for a reason. If they weren't doing it on their own then how would they remain successful? If the rich weren't doing SOMETHING to maintain their wealth then they'd be as poor as the people you claim to be wanting to help. Yet these rich people remain rich, is it so foreign to you that someone who is rich may have actually, I don't know, gotten their by their own accord?

4. "I don't think we should take it all, I think we should just take 75% of it" that is analogous to saying "I never advocated killing ALL the rich people, just 75% of them"

5. Perhaps you are not, but many left-wingers are.

6. How so? contrary to popular belief, throwing money at poor people doesn't usually help them work their way out of being poor. You and I seem to contradict on a fundamental level. I think an individual and a poor person is capable of pulling themselves out of poverty, my family certainly did. My grandfather moved to America with only the clothes on his back, not a penny to his name, started working in the fields, worked two jobs, paid his own way through night college, my grandmother worked in a cannery, and he became successful. He rose from dirt poor to middle class. I think that the poor are capable of doing that. To go along with an old saying, instead of constantly delivering them fish so they can eat for that night, why don't we teach them how to fish so they can eat for a lifetime?

7. "much less poverty" is not the eradication of poverty. May I also remind you that while the United States has a continuous influx of illegal and uneducated immigrants, Norway is pretty safe buffered by continental Europe, Sweden, Finland, and the North Sea; Norway is also about the size of California and its population is no where near that of the United States.

1. No. The fact that you wish to deny the poor their basic needs proves that you do not care about them.
And the fact that you support capitalism says that you are completely willing to choose who is more fit to have money than another.
If you didn't believe that anyone should have more money than another you would be a communist.

2.Why should capitalists be allowed to pick and choose who gets more money than the other?
Does that make you the judge of everything?

3. Wrong. People get rich by having rich parents, by exploiting the world's resources, and by exploiting other people. If it weren't for the rest of the world, the rich would have nothing.

4. What the fuck? No. Genocide is not logical in any way. Why the fuck would you compare taxes with genocide?

5. Bullshit. Who is advocating total equality?

6. Your old folks were from a different time with a different situation.
Today, the supply of jobs is lower than the demand for jobs, leaving people unable to get them.
I'm not purely advocating giving money to grown poor people, I think we could actually increase social mobility with inheritance taxes, an improved education system, and better living standards for children with poor families.
But asides from the inheritance taxes which would actually bring money in, how would you pay for this without a tax rise on the rich?

7. The fact that poverty hasn't been completely eradicated doesn't mean it can't be done.
Policies aimed at destroying poverty have worked and even if they haven't completely destroyed poverty doesn't mean that destroying poverty isn't worth it.

[Xirtam]

How so?
Should we also stop demonizing thieves, rapists and murderers?

Oh, I love this. Repeatedly you claim to not be demonizing them, and then try to justify demonizing them.

I only demonize them when they don't pay their fair share.
When did I not claim to be demonizing any of them?

[Xirtam]

Taxation is effectively stealing

And thank you for establishing that you're not to be taken seriously. Taxation is not theft. C/o Mike Huben:

Taxation is part of a social contract. Essentially, tax is payment in exchange for services from government. This kind of argument is suitable for defending almost any tax as part of a contract. Many libertarians accept social contract (for example, essentially all minarchists must to insist on a monopoly of government.) Of course they differ as to what should be IN the contract.

I dislike the social contract argument personally.
A libertarian capitalist could simply question whether the services government gives out or the land they occupy was justly acquired.

I prefer to question their extremely strict self-righteous views of property itself.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

I have very little problem with this.

Neither do I, in principle. But I'm also aware that there's way more to be considered.

In a very basic form, there are three factors that constitute government revenue from tax. Just consider the expression τNY, where τ is the tax rate, y is individual gross income (so that (1-τ)y is after-tax income) and N is the number of people.

Clearly, τNy is what the government is raking in. By increasing either one of these, holding the others constant, you increase government tax revenue, right? But the issue is that all of these are interconnected. The number of people, when it comes to 'millionaires' in particular, is arguably a monotonically decreasing function of the tax rate, N(τ) and the tax rate is probably a function of income τ(y), etc, etc. And it's even possible that N(τ(N)), so we get some recursive stuff going on.

When setting tax rates, you have to consider how it changes the incentives of the people being taxed and how their behaviour as it relates to income generation will change. Although I don't have an ethical problem with taxing the rich, it's not guaranteed that a 75% tax rate will increase net tax revenue. Not to mention changes in productivity (because you're mucking with marginal earnings).

[Seriong]

1. I care about the poor, their suffering hurts me. I am not prepared to dawn green tights and going around taking from the people I deem "unfit" to have money and giving it to people I deem more "fit" to have money.

2. "while the rich are busy doing drugs rolling around in expensive cars and buying up million dollar mansions?" A quote from you, not all people are doing drugs or rolling around in expensive cars with million dollar mansions. Yet you seem to think that it is okay to generalize them as such and so many left-wing people think it's okay to take their money because they deem them to be unfit tax evaders who can't possibly deserve to keep the wealth they earned. No, YOU and YOU ALONE are the only one who should EVER decide where other people's money go because you should be the ultimate judge of who is and who isn't fit to have wealth.

3. Yeah, I do. Successful people remain successful for a reason. If they weren't doing it on their own then how would they remain successful? If the rich weren't doing SOMETHING to maintain their wealth then they'd be as poor as the people you claim to be wanting to help. Yet these rich people remain rich, is it so foreign to you that someone who is rich may have actually, I don't know, gotten their by their own accord?

4. "I don't think we should take it all, I think we should just take 75% of it" that is analogous to saying "I never advocated killing ALL the rich people, just 75% of them"

5. Perhaps you are not, but many left-wingers are.

6. How so? contrary to popular belief, throwing money at poor people doesn't usually help them work their way out of being poor. You and I seem to contradict on a fundamental level. I think an individual and a poor person is capable of pulling themselves out of poverty, my family certainly did. My grandfather moved to America with only the clothes on his back, not a penny to his name, started working in the fields, worked two jobs, paid his own way through night college, my grandmother worked in a cannery, and he became successful. He rose from dirt poor to middle class. I think that the poor are capable of doing that. To go along with an old saying, instead of constantly delivering them fish so they can eat for that night, why don't we teach them how to fish so they can eat for a lifetime?

7. "much less poverty" is not the eradication of poverty. May I also remind you that while the United States has a continuous influx of illegal and uneducated immigrants, Norway is pretty safe buffered by continental Europe, Sweden, Finland, and the North Sea; Norway is also about the size of California and its population is no where near that of the United States.

1. No. The fact that you wish to deny the poor their basic needs proves that you do not care about them.
And the fact that you support capitalism says that you are completely willing to choose who is more fit to have money than another.
If you didn't believe that anyone should have more money than another you would be a communist.

2.Why should capitalists be allowed to pick and choose who gets more money than the other?
Does that make you the judge of everything?

3. Wrong. People get rich by having rich parents, by exploiting the world's resources, and by exploiting other people. If it weren't for the rest of the world, the rich would have nothing.

4. What the fuck? No. Genocide is not logical in any way. Why the fuck would you compare taxes with genocide?

5. Bullshit. Who is advocating total equality?

6. Your old folks were from a different time with a different situation.
Today, the supply of jobs is lower than the demand for jobs, leaving people unable to get them.
I'm not purely advocating giving money to grown poor people, I think we could actually increase social mobility with inheritance taxes, an improved education system, and better living standards for children with poor families.
But asides from the inheritance taxes which would actually bring money in, how would you pay for this without a tax rise on the rich?

7. The fact that poverty hasn't been completely eradicated doesn't mean it can't be done.
Policies aimed at destroying poverty have worked and even if they haven't completely destroyed poverty doesn't mean that destroying poverty isn't worth it.

1) Not taking away other people's money to support you =\= denying them their basic needs
2) Capitalists aren't saying they should be able to choose that, they say the opposite. They say "The benefit you provide to society determines how much money you have" you are the one saying "I should have the ability to determine how much money you, and everyone else should have"
3) Yes, if the rich were the sole people in the world, they would not be rich. So what? Are you saying that society can function without exploiting the environment, or other people, in some way? Are you willing to go back to the days before exploitative labor, meaning pre-industrial revolution?
5) Communists. Want a name? Bluth.
6) I'm not him, I am not arguing for taxes being theft. I would say that taxing at a rate of 75% is an awful idea, how it leaves the rich with other options, they will move to places with lower rates. While, having lower rates still brings in money, but doesn't drive them away.
7) How would we destroy poverty?

Oh, I love this. Repeatedly you claim to not be demonizing them, and then try to justify demonizing them.

I only demonize them when they don't pay their fair share.
When did I not claim to be demonizing any of them?

Here:

Personally I find the demonization of the rich to be quite alarming

Do tell me how the rich are being demonized.

That is not demonizing the rich in anyway.
I don't care if rich people do drugs and own expensive cars and mansions as long as they pay their fair share.
If they allow poor people to suffer than it's completely justified to demonize them.

Either you are claiming that they aren't being demonized, or you are asking a question that you already know the answer to, which is simply silly and a waste of time.

[Xirtam]

1. No. The fact that you wish to deny the poor their basic needs proves that you do not care about them.
And the fact that you support capitalism says that you are completely willing to choose who is more fit to have money than another.
If you didn't believe that anyone should have more money than another you would be a communist.

2.Why should capitalists be allowed to pick and choose who gets more money than the other?
Does that make you the judge of everything?

3. Wrong. People get rich by having rich parents, by exploiting the world's resources, and by exploiting other people. If it weren't for the rest of the world, the rich would have nothing.

4. What the fuck? No. Genocide is not logical in any way. Why the fuck would you compare taxes with genocide?

5. Bullshit. Who is advocating total equality?

6. Your old folks were from a different time with a different situation.
Today, the supply of jobs is lower than the demand for jobs, leaving people unable to get them.
I'm not purely advocating giving money to grown poor people, I think we could actually increase social mobility with inheritance taxes, an improved education system, and better living standards for children with poor families.
But asides from the inheritance taxes which would actually bring money in, how would you pay for this without a tax rise on the rich?

7. The fact that poverty hasn't been completely eradicated doesn't mean it can't be done.
Policies aimed at destroying poverty have worked and even if they haven't completely destroyed poverty doesn't mean that destroying poverty isn't worth it.

1) Not taking away other people's money to support you =\= denying them their basic needs

Since when was the money inherently the property of others?
If you deny someone the money required to fulfill their basic needs, it is most definitely denying them the fulfillment of their basic needs.

2) Capitalists aren't saying they should be able to choose that, they say the opposite. They say "The benefit you provide to society determines how much money you have" you are the one saying "I should have the ability to determine how much money you, and everyone else should have"

Laissez faire capitalists ask for exclusive rights to exploit the world's resources and deny the poor equal access to everything they have, they are most definitely deeming themselves more fit to have money than others, merely by holding money you deem yourself more fit to have it than others. Contrary to what you may believe, the amount of money a person has in a society with laissez faire capitalism is not proportional to the benefit they provide to society.

3) Yes, if the rich were the sole people in the world, they would not be rich. So what? Are you saying that society can function without exploiting the environment, or other people, in some way? Are you willing to go back to the days before exploitative labor, meaning pre-industrial revolution?

No, what I'm advocating is a form of regulated capitalism with equality of opportunity and wealth proportional to the benefit a person provides to society.

5) Communists. Want a name? Bluth.

Communism advocates public ownership of the means of production, and an abolishment of government, class, and money.
Nothing about it necessarily mandates equality of outcome.
One model of communism could have a system of workplace democracy and no money, and those who work harder would be apportioned more resources by the workplace, and as long as they don't become divisive it would still be communism.
Whoever this 'bluth' character is, he obviously can't be taken seriously as he doesn't understand profit motive.
His brand of communism is a single brand, and communism is a single brand of socialism, and socialism is a single brand of left-wing ideology.
People advocating equality of outcome are an extremely small minority of left-wingers.

6) I'm not him, I am not arguing for taxes being theft. I would say that taxing at a rate of 75% is an awful idea, how it leaves the rich with other options, they will move to places with lower rates. While, having lower rates still brings in money, but doesn't drive them away.

I already addressed this earlier.
It's pointless, self-serving idiocy, that only creates places with lower taxes for rich people to reside in.
If there are places with lower tax rates, there are two things you can do to solve the problem:
a) Bring tax rates on the rich internationally closer to each other.
b) Create regulations on moving resources and money outside of the country

7) How would we destroy poverty?

Large government spending funded by large taxes on the rich on a wide range of policies aimed at increasing equality of opportunity and ensuring a social minimum.

I'll get to your next piece in a second post.

[Empire of Narnia]

So the brain drain of France will commence as wealthy people flee to friendlier locations overseas. Maybe Canada will get lucky and some of those millionaires will set up shop in Quebec.

[The Republic of Pantalleria]

So the brain drain of France will commence as wealthy people flee to friendlier locations overseas. Maybe Canada will get lucky and some of those millionaires will set up shop in Quebec.

Well, France is still the 5th largest economy in the World, so we'll see what happens.

[Xirtam]

I only demonize them when they don't pay their fair share.
When did I not claim to be demonizing any of them?

Here:

Do tell me how the rich are being demonized.

That is not demonizing the rich in anyway.
I don't care if rich people do drugs and own expensive cars and mansions as long as they pay their fair share.
If they allow poor people to suffer than it's completely justified to demonize them.

Either you are claiming that they aren't being demonized, or you are asking a question that you already know the answer to, which is simply silly and a waste of time.

I was asking for his opinion in how the rich are being demonized, it's truth or falsity is irrelevant.

IMO:
On a small scale, they are being demonized, and by most they are not. Demonizing rich people who deny the poor their basic needs is justified, demonizing rich people purely for drug use or affluenza is not.

Does this make it clear?

[Xirtam]

So the brain drain of France will commence as wealthy people flee to friendlier locations overseas. Maybe Canada will get lucky and some of those millionaires will set up shop in Quebec.

Are you seriously using this as an argument against high taxes on the rich?

[Siaos]

75% tax? The rich and innovative will simply move out to countries in better shape. In this globalized world, the rich don't have to stand for 75% tax, and demonization by the media and the government. Especially in the unique position France is in with prosperous, (comparitively) lightly taxed nations immediately bordering it to the east. Three of them have French as an official language.

Luxembourg better prepare for a major influx of the ultra-rich, moderately rich, CEOs, corporate executives and pretty much everyone in the top couple percentages of income. I have a feeling that there might be a correlation between luxembourg being the richest country in the world per capita, and it being one of the few bordering country to France with French as its official language.

[The Alma Mater]

75% tax? The rich and innovative will simply move out to countries in better shape. In this globalized world, the rich don't have to stand for 75% tax, and demonization by the media and the government. Especially in the unique position France is in with prosperous, (comparitively) lightly taxed nations immediately bordering it to the east. Three of them have French as an official language.

Luxembourg better prepare for a major influx of the ultra-rich, moderately rich, CEOs, corporate executives and pretty much everyone in the top couple percentages of income. I have a feeling that there might be a correlation between luxembourg being the richest country in the world per capita, and it being one of the few bordering country to France with French as its official language.

Why would people emigrate to Luxembourg if their employer is taxed ? That would serve no purpose.